Monday, August 07, 2006

Jimmy Wynn

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Boy, I was expecting some more FOJW to pop up, 'course the thread has only been here for 12 hours or so. But there's a couple prelim ballots over on the Dick Allen thread and no Toy Cannon. I am thinking there will be a big spread on him a la Norm Cash.

I see Wynn around #22 historically, though I'd probably prefer to express it as #20-25. My current rankings of available players, with elected guys added for context and eligibles listed as current rank/historical rank.

NOTE: Griffey, all time, ranks #18, through 2005, while between Jones and Wilson are Murphy, Edmonds-Fitzgerald, and Bernie.

Wynn's in the 20-25 range and a very impressive player. I've got him as the "Best CF in the NL" for the adjoining periods 1967-1969 and 1968-1970. In addition, I rank him as four times the All-Star CF in the NL, and once as the All-Star RF. In addition, he's also the second-best CF in the league (or expanded equivalent) three other times. Finally, although he never won an MVP nor does WS give him any MVPs, he did finish as a top-five finisher (or expaned equivalent) by WS five times. All told that's a very fine record indeed.

Let me chart this out for all the CFs that are in my top-ten list above:

I think Wynn fits comfortably in this group. His drawback is that his career wasn't quite long enough to support his case. Though his peak is nice, it's not historic for his position (it would be killer at catcher!), and so requires some career-length support which he was unable to provide. The one fly in the ointment that I potentially see is that Wynn is the only unelected player on my list of ten eligibles whose career began after the war. And only Doby and Ashburn are top-25 guys from Hamilton on whose careers started after the war. Not sure why, not sure if it's a problem, not sure what the solution would be.

I've got Wynn about equal to Roush on career (which is high for me) but with a much higher peak. One of my favorites historically, he's going tough to slot, I'm going to have to compare him to Griffin, GVH, Ryan and Duffy too. I don't think I can get him above Freehan, who I had at #11 in 1982.

Wynn’s top 3 are slightly behind Berger and Wilson, but his top 5 are slightly ahead. He has more 20-win share seasons, and he has a lot more career.

Without period considerations, I would say Wynn is clearly ahead by the numbers. With improvements in competition, Wynn’s peak becomes more impressive. By my quick count, 6.5% of all major-league regular seasons (assuming 8 position players and 3 starting pitchers per team) in the 1930s (Berger’s career) were 28.5 win shares or better (that’s 30 when adjusted to 162 games). From 1966-1975 (Wynn’s career), the percentage of 30+ win share seasons was 4.7%. Since this was the heyday of the 4-man rotation, pitchers should account for about the same percentage, or more, of those MVP-level seasons. Anyway, it’s a 25% drop in the percentage of MVP-level seasons, 1930s vs. 1965-75.

I won’t argue with you on your top 3 – Browning, Roush, and Duffy – not because I fully agree with you but because we wouldn’t agree on the meaning of the statistics that either of us would use to make a case. I think win shares oversells Duffy considerably, and I think Browning is oversold by weak AA competition. With Roush, it’s very close, and I could see it either way. But I think Wynn rates higher against his contemporaries.

I've got Wynn about equal to Roush on career (which is high for me) but with a much higher peak. One of my favorites historically, he's going tough to slot, I'm going to have to compare him to Griffin, GVH, Ryan and Duffy too. I don't think I can get him above Freehan, who I had at #11 in 1982.

Among his contemporaries, I agree that Wynn is right behind Freehan. I have Freehan a little higher than you do, so I have Wynn somewhere in the bottom third of my ballot, most likely.

Another factor: for most of baseball history, we've had a generous supply of do-it-all centerfielders, the guys like Cobb and Charleston and DiMaggio and Mays who were great hitters, period. And we've elected lots of CF. But since Willie, Mickey, and the Duke left the scene, how many have there been? The type seems suddenly less common. And where is that OPS+ by position chart? Hasn't CF slid from what it once was?

Thx Jim D, I don't think I had seen the data charted in that way before. Very cool. Some observations.

1. I don't think RF was ever a position with high defensive value. It's just that in the very early days teams put their worst player in RF, like Little League.

2. The data would support a high defensive evaluation of Joe Start, but not Jake Beckley.

3. We (or at least I) think of RF having more defensive value than LF because of the long throw. Maybe that's just a skill and not a value that shows up in the numbers, because for the last 45 years RF is lower on the defensive spectrum. What's with that?

4. I am also surprised that 1B has less defensive value than LF if only considering the number of chances the 1B gets.

5. The shifting of the spectrum between 2B and 3B comes earlier than I thought, right around 1900. I thought it was more like 1920. So much for Jimmy Collins.

6. The shift between C and SS in about 1920 is more in line with expectations, but what's with the relationship of C to 2B. C had less defensive value than 2B from the '50s to the '80s--I guess that's about DPs. But C has more than 2B again in the '90s. Why?

7. CF in the '10s is obviously related to a couple-three specific individuals. More interesting is the movement of CF up the spectrum consistently now since the '40s. The one comparison I have mostly wondered about--CF vs. 3B--makes sense to me.

8. And after all the movement over all these years, 3B is right back where it started from.

9. It would be interesting to see what the correlation is between gaps in our HoM electorate and trends on this chart. One might hypothesize that there would be gaps when the requirements of the position changed. Around 1920, e.g., it is clear that SS was impacted, as management went back and forth between more offense and more defense. Individual SSs had shorter tenures as a result of an unstable model, and fewer of them are in the HoM for that period, I believe.

9a. What are the most dramatic such changes. Certainly 3B after 1930, CF it appears in recent decades, C and 2B at various times.... But that is not a study I am prepared to do. Way too much work.

I would guess that if you looked at the two positions over this 60 year period, they would be nearly even. James is correct, I think, when he notes that there is a shift after 1930. This data suggests that he is incorrect to characterize that shift as 2B and 3B switching places. The shift is that two previously equal positions diverge, as 3B becomes a higher offense position over the long term and 2B becomes a higher defense position.

1. I don't think RF was ever a position with high defensive value. It's just that in the very early days teams put their worst player in RF, like Little League.

It wasn't quite like that. Pre-1890 or thereabouts, players couldn't be replaced without the permission of the opponents, though the players on the field could switch positions all they liked. You wanted a change pitcher, it was one of the other starting nine. RFers tended to be super-subs, including the ability to pitch acceptably (don't think "closer", think "long-man" when your starter gets hurt). As the seasons grew longer, benches also got longer, so 2nd and 3rd catchers also spent time out there. Not all teams subscribed to these strategies; fielding RF was not difficult as the leagues were overwhelmingly right-handed. "Damn the defense; we'll out-score them" developed a following, with Detroit (Sam Thompson) and New York (Mike Tiernan) having great success at the end of the 1880's putting DH types out in RF. Best of all was to have the personnel to combine them; see the St. Louis Browns in the AA, who had Caruthers and Foutz taking their turns in the rotation while splitting RF and hitting like corner OFs, at least for a couple of pennant-winning years.

RF evolved from the NA days (having a backup pitcher out there), to a mix of different strategies in the 1880's, to being another OF hitter after "modern" substitution rules developed in the early 1890's.

Jimmy Wynn: of course, the career is too short. Of course, he was washed up and gone far too young. If I try to pick out a 10-year prime (1965-1974), he was mediocre, hurt, or just plain bad three years out of the ten. But when he was good ... wow! I've got him as level with Larry Doby, and that's a Doby with Negro League equivalent credit added to his resume - in other words, the Doby we elected. I don't know exactly in what position yet, but I'm pretty sure he makes my ballot.

Does that chart only include 'regulars'? If so, there may be selection bias at catcher, as the catchers who meet the regular status tend to be the best hitters, the lesser hitters don't play as much and don't enter the population . . . this happens much more at catcher than at other positions - middle infielders rarely platoon.

Just a thought anyway . . .

Although in the 1970s-80s it makes sense, as two weird things happened - middle infielders hit absolutely horribly (need for D on turf? dumb managers?) and we had some really good hitting catchers, Bench, Simmons, Carter, Porter, Munson, Fisk - and star gluts throw the numbers off when looking at averages.

As for RF in the early days - weren't there very few left-handed hitters? Those guys weren't throwing 98 MPH, I imagine just about everything was pulled, making 3B/SS, LF/CF much more important than 1B/2B/RF - though 1B still didn't hit well because of the lack of gloves. Makes for the "Little League" effect mentioned for RF as where to store the utility guy so he does the least damage.

Yeah, we used to hide our worst fielders in RF and even at 2B (because the throw is so short and the DP was so rare). The best three players were always at SS, LF & 1B because they got the most touches. The guy at 3B would have to have a great arm, so he was invariably one of our better players as well.

This explains the fielding skill spectrum, but a professional league is not like softball where "everyone has to play". Its curious that more DH-type mashers didn't end up in RF in the 1870s & 1880s. Perhaps speed was a more important part of the game and you had to be a better all-around athlete to be a good hitter?

I think the earlier explanation--that the RF was really the back-up P--is right.

Actually in slow pitch the 3B doesn't necessarily have a great arm, just a casual disregard for life and limb. The point being, a batted ball gets down to 3rd so fast that if it is fielded at all, there is time for a cup of tea before making the throw. Or, you can bounce it 3 times over to first and still get the runner.

But yes, after RF, 2B was the bottom of the spectrum. Catcher sometimes, too, though then there was the play at the plate. In co-ed softball the catcher would usually be a female, but then the pitcher (regardless of gender, the pitcher would always be a better athlete than the catcher) would run in to take a play at the plate--from the OF, anyway, no time on a play from the IF.

Actually 1B was not very high on the spectrum either. In co-ed, the guys would be SS, 3B, LF, CF, short field. Your best women would be your pitcher and 1B. At least that was pretty typical (I say was because I have been retired from slow pitch for about 10 years now--mostly SS with some 3B, 1B and/or anywhere, even a little CF and then RF as an old man [40-something]--both men's and co-ed--after playing for about 25 years. I still have my glove and my batting gloves, but haven't even played a game of catch in 5 years).

my and sunny's slow-pitch careers are eerily similar, except I also pitched a bit on the backside of age 35.
at 45, with slower reaction time, I'd probably lose an internal organ if I took the mound again with the hot bats out there now. My last year on the rubber I'd take 3 quick and large steps back after delivery!

I just don't see how anybody could have Wynn ahead of Dom DiMaggio. Their career numbers are about even, and that's before you give DiMaggio any war credit.

Am I missing sarcasm? If so, I apologize.

They're close, if you ignore the fact that Wynn played in pitchers park in the 1960's, and DiMaggio played in a hitters park in the 1940's. Once you take into account context, they aren't close. DiMaggio's career high in OPS+ is 123. Wynn's career OPS+ is 128, with eight seasons over 130.

I played softball against a team where 3 guys were drawing Social Security this summer. We beat them pretty handily but they were fun to play against.
Were they Henderson, Franco, and Palmeiro?

I just don't see how anybody could have Wynn ahead of Dom DiMaggio. Their career numbers are about even, and that's before you give DiMaggio any war credit.
a) run environment favors wynn
b) wynn had mvp type seasons, dom never did
c) timeline, if you're so inclined.

This contest is open only to recent players, I suppose.
Amos Otis and Ken Singleton have their fans, Otis having a weighty one (Bill James) and Singleton having lots of people in Montreal. Whoa, ten full seasons in Baltimore.

--Another factor: for most of baseball history, we've had a generous supply of do-it-all centerfielders, the guys like Cobb and Charleston and DiMaggio and Mays who were great hitters, period. And we've elected lots of CF. But since Willie, Mickey, and the Duke left the scene, how many have there been? The type seems suddenly less common. And where is that OPS+ by position chart? Hasn't CF slid from what it once was?

For the 1970s and 1980s, roughly, not merely centerfield but outfield and firstbase declined in quality, as Morgan, Carew, Schmidt, Brett, Bench, Simmons et al "throwing infielders" staked claims to be among the best offensive players, add Young and Ripken if you will. And they were joined by boatloads of players at those four positions who were merely better all-around than the norm in the days of Ray Schalk and Red Schoendienst.

There were not many outfielders better than Amos Otis (almost always center) and Ken Singleton (4 games cf).

Clemente, Mays, Aaron, and Robinson left the scene during my teens. At some time after meeting Bill James in print, the 1984 annual or the first historial Abstract, I recall going to sleep not counting sheep but counting players better than every outfielder but Rickey Henderson: how large a list of greatest career players could I make, including only one outfielder.

As for RF in the early days - weren't there very few left-handed hitters? Those guys weren't throwing 98 MPH, I imagine just about everything was pulled, making 3B/SS, LF/CF much more important than 1B/2B/RF - though 1B still didn't hit well because of the lack of gloves. Makes for the "Little League" effect mentioned for RF as where to store the utility guy so he does the least damage.

Right Field was also where you stuck your 'change' pitcher. ALL the outfielders got fewer chances than in modern times, as hitters chocked up and tried to bunt or poke the ball thru the infield, but especially RF I suppose.

Also, don't forget about the ballpark designs, where the LF fence (if there was a fence) was 400 ft away, while RF might be 250 ft away, so there was much less ground to cover in RF, and you could afford to put a lesser player there..

sunnyday21. I don't think RF was ever a position with high defensive value. It's just that in the very early days teams put their worst player in RF, like Little League.

In the earliest baseball games we take seriously here,
- pitcher is a defensive specialist who is typically relatively weak at bat; already in the 1870s jimd selects and normalizes non-pitchers only and he might do it for the 1860s
- player substitution is almost nil; teams change defense by changing positions; many a second pitcher or second catcher (third battery?) plays right field

5. The shifting of the spectrum between 2B and 3B comes earlier than I thought, right around 1900. I thought it was more like 1920. So much for Jimmy Collins.

look again

Joe DiminoAs for RF in the early days - weren't there very few left-handed hitters?

Serious analysis of the issues must include the development of switch-hitting and the distribution of left and right pitching hands. Development is not just numbers but were early major league switch-hitters notable more powerful at bat from the left or the right?

Those guys weren't throwing 98 MPH, I imagine just about everything was pulled, making 3B/SS, LF/CF much more important than 1B/2B/RF - though 1B still didn't hit well because of the lack of gloves. Makes for the "Little League" effect mentioned for RF as where to store the utility guy so he does the least damage.

Don't spend too much time thinking about your boys team or your slow-pitch team. In fast-pitch softball, with few lefty batters (no switch-batters) and few able to pull the ball consistently, we still put the weakest fielder in right.
(BTW, shouldn't most slow-pitch teams put the weakest fielders at catcher and second?)

Joe Dimino:
Thanks for switching back to your real name, Joe (there I blew your cover). Outside references to the project sometimes mention the commissioner and secretary by real name so it is better to have them real named here. (I googled Chris Cobb, whose naming in some correspondence has been discussed. "He" is first and foremost a band.)

jimd:
graphed version, nice. May I second Joe Dimino regarding the method. Do you allocate full-season battin lines for all players or non-pitchers? Am I right that the 8-position norm is 100 (! in the graphed version?

Are you a SABR member? There are three birth year changes that I have recently noted for early HOMers and three for famous contemporaries.
1859 -> 1857 Glasscock 1852 -> 1855 Hines, now considered a teenage star
1851 -> 1850 York Tom
1850 -> 1849 McVey
1845 -> 1846 Allison Doug
???? -> 1843 Wood Jimmy
For those born 1871 or later, surveyed during WWI, there are many recently reported revisions.

>(BTW, shouldn't most slow-pitch teams put the weakest fielders at catcher and second?)

Maybe. Because obviously if a batter can go the other way with power (hit the ball into RF where there is a terrible fielder) it can do a lot more damage than if the ball is hit to the 2B hole and is mishandled. I never had HR power in slow-pitch, but I would routinely bloop a double into RF. But most people (most men, even most athletic men in my experience) cannot hit a slow-pitch the opposite way.

But anyway, even if they should put their weakest fielders at 2B and catcher, they nevertheless DID put him/her in RF.

Maybe. Because obviously if a batter can go the other way with power (hit the ball into RF where there is a terrible fielder) it can do a lot more damage than if the ball is hit to the 2B hole and is mishandled. I never had HR power in slow-pitch, but I would routinely bloop a double into RF. But most people (most men, even most athletic men in my experience) cannot hit a slow-pitch the opposite way.

I was always able to drive the ball the other way, in both fast-pitch and slow-pitch. I played a lot of softball on the Mall in DC when I lived/worked there. The fields were usually set up so that RF was the "short field" - the Mall is longer than it is wide, so we'd set up with LF running toward the Monument (or Capitol) and RF running toward the pedestrian walkways and the museums. The LFs usually played as deep as they could, but the RFs were constrained by the walkways and the trees beyond. I could consistently put the ball onto or over the walkway on the far side of the Mall, in right or right-center. (I hit a pedestrian once, who threatened to sue, but that's a story for another time...)

Just a note on Slow-pitch (10-aside) outfield...From 20+ years experience, we always placed the "Stud outfielder" in RC who would try to cheat shallow, the weakest in LC where he would play deep. LF was the steady but slow guy (good arm), RF tended to be the 2nd fastest guy, 2nd weakest arm but most importantly could read the hooking balls hit by RH batters going off-field. Overall the weakest OF was always in LC...just catch the long flies that stay in the park...

Another cute thing we would do with 2 out and a force situation, good hitter at the plate, is to drop 2b and SS deep and as pitcher I would cover 2nd for the force...

With the new bats, what you see in a great team is a balance of mashers and guys that hit line drives over 2nd base. Good teams don't seem to have many pull line-drive-hitters, its either opposite field 0.750 hitters or 0.500 hitters with HR/AB of 0.4...

I played sb a couple of years on a team that was half Brit golfers; flakemeister is right that we played the slower ones at c and 2b and the younger ones (fast but with no better arm and iffy gloves) in RF and LC kinda like a coed team. Problems was that sometimes we had to find a 5th Brit spot and that some of the Yanks who could catch were really too slow so that the LC would have to range after a ball the LF should have gotten, then clank it.

One of the all-time great parks I used to play in was at the Marine House just outside Geneva Switzerland (The US Mission Marine Guard was stationed there). Anyway, you had an absolutely stunning view of Mt. Blanc. The league was this combination of excellent ex-pat Americans and Canadians players(many with minor league/college baseball experience) along with a truly international collection of players that learned to appreciate the synthesis of beer and softball...There were guys that were obviously CIA types. It was a truly eclectic mix

BTW, if you fly into Geneva from the East the approach gives you a birds eye view of the field...

I hope to do some hiking around Zermatt next year. Would I be likely to be flying into Geneva? I suppose if I came to see the park (surely it's a big tourist attraction) the CIA types would be freaking out.

3. We (or at least I) think of RF having more defensive value than LF because of the long throw. Maybe that's just a skill and not a value that shows up in the numbers, because for the last 45 years RF is lower on the defensive spectrum. What's with that?

APerhaps it is worth considering that when teams have two CF-caliber defensive players, they stick the extra CF in LF (Bonds and Van Slyke?). Someone somehwere during an analysis of the top defensive teams over the past few years (I think it focused on last years white sox) pointed out how a really good LF can put a surprising jolt into defensive efficiency by virture of the number of balls hit to LF.

That's a pretty good player since Edmonds isn't yet HOMable only because he doesn't have the career length, and Lankford is a similar player; both ranked within my personal all-time top 50 MLB CFs, Lankford dropping to 51 with the addition of the NgLs. Wynn's already got enough career to be a serious candidate, and he's got bigger peak years than these two do.

What really separates Wynn from Torii is the 20 points of OBP+ and the increased value of those HR in that context. I guess what I'm saying is Torii had the tools to be Jim Wynn but never developed the skills at the plate. Maybe being 5'9" helped encourage Wynn to develop his batting eye.

Another cute thing we would do with 2 out and a force situation, good hitter at the plate, is to drop 2b and SS deep and as pitcher I would cover 2nd for the force...

That might be viable with none or one out, any time the batter and field make six outfielders valuable.
Note, it does seem royally unfair to me. Offhand, I suggest that a league should require all infielders to remain in the infield until the batter makes contact, if it requires all runners to hold until the batter makes contact (as slo-ball leagues do, I believe).

Here in Cambridge/Boston, I played only fast-ball, which was simply called softball. We played on public fields where the long Puritan hangover permits no beer drinking; that must hurt slo-ball if not effectively prevent it.

--You'd be flying either into Zurich or Geneva (Genf)...either is possible. Zermatt is wonderful.

It's all in the clouds. Here's wishing you at least one sunny day. On two day trips to Switzerland years ago, I once saw the sun throughout the return trip by ferry to Konstanz. Lovely, but no longer much closer to the mountains than we were upon leaving in the morning. (Did see a full double rainbow, still a once in this lifetime experience.)

I don't see Wynn as comparable to Kirby Puckett at the plate. Puckett was a high average, low walks, terrific bad ball hitter. Wynn had a great batting eye and long ball power but wasn't a batting title favorite. Defensively, Wynn was possibly better than Puckett which says something about Wynn.

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether these rankings are right, it seems to me that both Puckett and Wynn would be halfway down this list somewhere. Reasonable people could differ about which half is above and which below though, for me, if Roush is still in the mix (well, OK, when Roush is still in the mix) it is hard for me to see either of them ahead of Edd. (And look at Fred Lynn, basically identical to Puckett for career, well ahead for 3 yrs and just 5 WS behind for 5 yrs. What a glorious mess.)

Part of me wants to point out that Puckett's great defense is largely forgotten thanks to how big he got late in his career. He put up some pretty impressive PO totals in his twenties.

But the other part wants to point out that Puckett is not eligible until 2001 and we should focus on the Toy Cannon for now.

Either way, my impression is that with the exception of GriffeyJr, the great CF's of previous eras are gone and this is becoming more of a glove position. Should post-Mays CF's receive a boost? I don't think Wynn has any chance without one.

And 5 active CFers who are sometimes mentioned as HoF candidates have a median OBA of .858 (Bernie, trailing Griffey and Edmonds, ahead of Andruw and Finley). 5 1B candidates have a median of .976 (Thome, trailing Helton and Thomas, ahead of Giambi and Delgado).

somewhere (I cannot find now), someone (yest?) posted Wynn's home/road career splits. Can a kind soul point them out or reproduce them here? Thanks.
I posted this on the ballot thread for reasons I didn't vote for Wynn

Jimmy Wynn (a 250 BA) (way to many strikeouts) (overrated fielder) and (wasn’t hurt by his park half as bad as some make it out to be(hit 263/382/457 in the astrodome versus 250/366/436 for his career (PS: I know the second number is brought down by subpar seasons at the end of his career but the point is there)))

some time in the the next few days I plan to do a much more elaborate home road split for wynn

Thanks guys.
From the link's stats, Wynn created 5.71 r/g at home in his career, versus 5.14 on the road, according to the basic RC formula (OBP*SLG/(1-AVG)*25.5), which is 11% better at home. Historically, the home vs road advantge for a player in a neutral park is 10%.

Wynn's home parks have a avg park factor (Tom's eyeball) of .96 for his career. This means that runs were EIGHT percent more difficult to come by at home (since the park factor takes into account that half of the team's games are road games; the 'raw' park factor is about .92).

Jimmy Wynn thus was 8% (or more) better at home than we might expect him to be. I feel safe in concluding that the toy cannon adjusted his swing enough for the Astrodome/etc in such a way that he was more valuable than he would have been in a neutral setting. In other words, he was able to take abnormal advantage of his home park. In other other words, the death valley of the dome didn't hurt him as much as you might expect. So, he posted nice OPS+ numbers.

Does this actually "mean" anything to us? Well, if you're a 100 "values voter" (sorry, couldn't resist the modern political slang), it don't. Like Ed Williamson pounding 27 HR in the 1880s one year, or Gavy Cravath's few great power years at home, what he did had value, so there. If you lean a little to the "ability" side of the debate, one could say that Wynn probably wouldn't have mashed the ball quite as much as we might assume if we attempt to 'translate' his stats to a different time and place.

For me, it's these kind of small things that may keep him off my ballot, if my ##s and reasoning are not found to be faulty.

Still this is an OK list. I would quibble about Charleston (too low), Torriente (too high or maybe just that the gap would be before rather than after), I couldn't possibly slide even one guy between Berger and Wilson (Wilson surely too low even if only by 2-3 slots), Pinson and Murphy and Dawson (and other recent players other than Griffey and Puckett generally MIA, is Edmonds really better than any of these guys?) and Puckett way too low.

Also, is Oms a CF and not top 25, or is he a RF?

But Roush is correctly slotted AHEAD of a bunch of guys we've elected.

And overall my "gut" would have about 32 guys in the top 25, so take it all with a grain of something.

I don't even rate guys who are still active. A 138 (and dropping) in 7000 PA cries out for a perspective that we don't have just now.

I fully agree with that. We probably do have enough perspective to think about Griffey as a 90's-centered peak/prime candidate. But I'd be very, very cautious in talking about Edmonds (or Andruw, Ichiro, Rolen, Schilling, ...)

Now I've been working up another list where I combine Uber stats and keltner quesitons to create a HOM score scaled from 1-90. At 20 you become a candidate, at 30 you're borderlin, at 40 you're getting very hot, 50 and up you're a lock.

The second list above captures the 3/5/10/15/career information as about 1/9th of the total assessment. It also captures MVP type seasons, all-star type seasons, comparability to HOF careers, 3-year best in league and best at position, past-prime performance, likelihood of a player pushing his team to victory. Eight categories, summed, each weighted at 10 points, but with one 20 point category.

This second list has a lot more contextual information than the simple 3/5/10/15/career gague I've been using. An intersting case is Hamilton. He leaps up three slots in the second list because he was really dominant over his leagues and his position. The 3/5/10/15/career tool is not sensitive enough to capture that important information. On the other hand, Stan Spence is propelled too far upward because he had a dominant stretch during the war when competition was thin. But that's why you have to review these things. Look at Edd Roush. He's down in the mid teens in list one, but when you take his various contextual performances into account, he moves up like Hamilton does. Mabye I shouldn't have been so hard on Mike Webber?---see Mike, I'm open minded on this. Who gets dinged? GVH mostly.

Once the NgLers are introduced, it's going to be dicy, of course. And I haven't gotten my re-eval of them underway yet, and I don't know how to begin incorporating them into a system with a great deal of real MLB context in it. It'll be fun trying!

I do expect that this new look will have an effect on my voting in the near future.

I have what I call the Reputation Monitor. I use it to build consideration sets, not as a final thing, because as the name suggests it's about capturing information about a player's reputation, what some writers might say is "whether he looks like a HoFer or not."

The inputs include Win Shares, both career and peak; TPR (Linear Weights); Hall of Fame Monitor and Standards; Black and Grey Ink; OPS+ or ERA+; defensive WS, counting double IOW, for position players, and hitting WS for pitchers; plus adjustments for competition (AA, US, FL, wartime), for time missed to war, and position (catchers and relievers only). Some of the raw numbers are /2 or -100 or etc. in order to make all of the inputs of relatively equal weight.

A 300 is inner circle; a 200 score is generally a HoF lock; a 175 is a good candidate (i.e. show cause why not); a 150 is a candidate (show cause why...), below 150 probably not, probably a mistake if elected, below 100 is an absolute joke of a candidate much less electee.

I have not evaluated players active since about 2000. Griffey probably comes in right behind the inner circle, probably not in the inner circle.

Again my final ranking is different than this, this is the consideration set basically. (It works better at the very top, it is not as good at differentiating the mid-ballot guys.)

Doby 173--e.g. added NeL value, that's why
Duffy 170
Murphy 168
Averill 168--e.g. MiL MLE?
Ashburn 162--e.g. extraordinary defense
Berger 155--e.g. great peak
Lynn 154
(I have no idea if CP Bell would come in here or maybe down with Earl Combs... Oms maybe in here somewhere and W Brown, too, though I rate him more with the RFers, and maybe Pete Hill though I rate him with the LFers)

It's a lot easier in my mind to show cause why for these guys than to show cause why not for the 175+.

HoVG

Pinson 148
Seymour 145
Cedeno 144--you can probably show cause why Cedeno and Wynn are as good as the 150-175 but you've used up your causes and you haven't gotten them into the 175+ group (IMO)
E. Davis 139
Beaumont 136
GVH 136
Oliver 134
Wynn 133
Otis 131
D. DiMaggio 128--with WWII credit
Ryan 126
(I have a feeling Poles would be in the bottom reaches of the HoVG)

But I'd be very, very cautious in talking about Edmonds (or Andruw, Ichiro, Rolen, Schilling, ...)

An interesting question. For instance, WS are additive, and the all-MLB guys you mentioned now have enough of them in the bank that we can see them rising on the lists. But we also have enough info about them to begin saying things like 'Rolen was the best 3B x times and was the best 3B over y periods of time.' We can make supportable assertions in that way about Edmonds, Rolen, Andruw, Schilling that already can be compared to retired candidates. And to a degree, those assertions are a little more valuable than things like 'Jeter now has 2250 hits' or 'Biggio is approaching 3000 hits' or 'McGriff is inching toward 500 homers' since the context of being the best in your league is less subject to contextual distortion than batting and pitching milestones are subject to distortions due to r/g rates, park, etc....

Right, Dr C, except for those who use comparative stats like OPS+ or ERA+, it helps to have the "retired plus 5 yrs" context; for example, some have pointed out how the ERA+ of league leaders has moved higher in recent yers, postulated expansion and/or 12-man staffs as a cause, concluded that quality has slipped, and thus means a career 127+ ain't no longer a fer-sher-HoM-worthy number (hello there, Kevin Brown....). But yes, if we use "among the x best over y years", we can come close to evaling those in their decline phase.

And as for WS, Bill James says you need this massive bullshit dump in order to use it properly (i.e. the way he does). I think you need at least 5 years worth of bullshit to really know where a guy belongs.

this is only talking a bought a player who it helps not hurts (just think the oppisate for that)
is it because player x was hurt by playing in his park (Joe Dimaggio, Goose Goslin) so using park factor you nutrize the numbers to show how great they were (let's call this merit reason for park factor)

or because the average player hits x amount in his ball park and player X hits higher so he is more valuble then other players to play in that ball park even though the ballpark which hurt most players had the odd effect of helping him (right now I'm not getting in to whether or not he adapted to do great in his ball park or he natruly did better for random reasons for now let's just assume it was random luck)(let's call this value reason for park factor)

Its "about". Sorry for the spelling correction. I understand english might not be your first language. I also understand that my posts are often poorly editted and I shouldn't be one to judge, but I've read that particular one too many times.

I like the 'value reason' of park factor. It takes fewer runs to win games in pitchers parks, so offensive numbers need to be adjusted accordingly.

That said, the 'negative effects of the astrodome' are a bit overblown during the Wynn era with Park Factors hovering between 96 and 100 from 1967-73. A pitcher park, but just a moderate one. The major factor that's boosting Wynn's numbers on translation is the low offense levels league-wide.